NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
THIRD DIVISION Docket Number TD-20086
Frederick R. Blackwell, Referee
(American Train Dispatchers Association
PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
(Georgia Railroad
STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the American Train Dispatchers Association that:
(a) The Georgia Railroad (hereinafter referred to as "the Carrier")
violated the currently effective Schedule Agreement between the parties, Ar
ticle 8 thereof in particular, by its action in imposing discipline upon Train
Dispatcher A. L. Hall, based upon charge made against him on June 30, 1972,
and hearing held pursuant thereto. _
(b) The Carrier shall now rescind the disciplinary action taken and
clear the record of Claimant A.L. Hall.
OPINION OF BOARD: Following hearing, claimant was assessed thirty (30) de-
merits for failure to comply with special instructions to
notify the General Superintendent-Chief Engineer of a request from another railroad to borrow Carrie
aside because claimant was not afforded due process by the hearing procedure.
The discipline resulted from an incident which occurred while claimant
was working a third trick dispatcher position. The request to borrow Carrier's
wrecker came in at about 1:00 a.m. Claimant had authority to lend the wrecker,
which he did, but he did not report the matter to the appropriate officials until the next morning.
morning to report. However, the Carrier said the instructions provided no option and that they requi
claimant failed to do.
Petitioner's due process contention is that Mr. J. L. Wilson, Jr.,
Superintendent of Transportation, issued the special instructions in question,
brought the charge against claimant of non-compliance with the instructions,
and conducted the hearing on the subject of claimant's non-compliance with the
instructions. Objections on these grounds were timely raised at the outset of
the hearing on the charge.
Many Awards of this Board have found no inherent due process defect
in the practice of multiple functions being reposed in a single Carrier official
in a disciplinary proceeding. We believe, though, that this case falls outside
the boundaries of those authorities. There was no dispute on the facts of when
,a
Award Number 19914 Page 2
Docket Number TD-20086
claimant made his report, for he readily acknowledged that he made it the next
morning. The issue was whether this action could be regarded as authorized by
a reasonable interpretation of the instructions, albeit the Carrier had a different, and also re
adversaries, because the claimant sought to convince the author that his, the
author's instructions had two different meanings. Where such issues are drawn,
we think it presumes too much to regard the author as a neutral on the question
of what his instructions mean. The following extract from the hearing transcript plainly shows that
the meaning which claimant gave to them.
"Wilson: Mr. Hall, how can you say that you could wait until morning
to notify Mr. Jones when these instructions read otherwise?
Hall: Mr. Wilson, this was my understanding that this was what
these instructions meant.
Wilson: Mr. Hall, am I to understand that you do not understand
these instructions?
Hall: Mr. Wilson, I thought I did until I was charged with this
violation.
Wilson: Mr. Hall, how can you say that you thought you understood
these instructions when they read otherwise?"
We have no doubt that Carrier has sole authority to say what its
special instructions mean. We also have no doubt that discipline will not lie
in the instant dispute if more than one interpretation can reasonably be drawn
from the instructions. But this issue was not fairly tried. Since the central
fact of the hearing involved the issue of whether claimant's interpretation was
a reasonable one, and since Mr. Wilson was the author of the instructions in
controversy, we think Mr. Wilson either should not have served as hearing officer, or should have ta
another competent Carrier witness. He did neither and we conclude that claimant was thereby deprived
shall sustain the claim.
FINDINGS: The Third Division of the Adjustment Board, upon the whole record
and all the evidence, finds and holds:
That the parties waived oral hearing;
That the Carrier and the Employes involved in this dispute are
respectively Carrier and Employes within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act,
as approved June 21, 1934;
Award Number 19914 Page 3
Docket Number TD-20086
That this Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over
the dispute involved herein; and
That the Agreement was violated.
A W A R D
Claim sustained.
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of Third Division
ATTEST:
a·~
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 7th day of September 1973.
;<
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
Award Number 19914
THIRD DIVISION Docket Number TD-20086
Frederick R. Blackwell, Referee
(American Train Dispatchers Association
PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
(Georgia Railroad
STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the American Train Dispatchers Association that:
(a) The Georgia Railroad (hereinafter referred to as "the Carrier")
violated the currently effective Schedule Agreement between the parties, Article 8 thereof in partic
Dispatcher A. L. Hall, based upon charge made against him on June 30, 1972,
and hearing held pursuant thereto.
(b) The Carrier shall now rescind the disciplinary action taken and
clear the record of Claimant A.L. Hail.
OPINION OF BOARD: Following hearing, claimant was assessed thirty (30) de-
merits for failure to comply with special instructions to
notify the General Superintendent-Chief Engineer of a request from another railroad to borrow Carrie
aside because claimant was not afforded due process by the hearing procedure.
The discipline resulted from an incident which occurred while claimant
was working a third trick dispatcher position. The request to borrow Carrier's
wrecker came in at about 1:00 a.m. Claimant had authority to lend the wrecker,
which he did, but he did not report the matter to the appropriate officials until the next.morning.
morning to report. However, the Carrier said the instructions provided no option and that they requi
claimant failed to do.
Petitioner's due process contention is that Mr. J. L. Wilson, Jr.,
Superintendent of Transportation, issued the special instructions in question,
brought the charge against claimant of non-compliance with the instructions,
and conducted the hearing on the subject of claimant's non-compliance with the
instructions. Objections on these grounds were timely raised at the outset of
the hearing on the charge.
Many Awards of this Board have found no inherent due process defect
in the practice of multiple functions being reposed in a single Carrier official
in a disciplinary proceeding. We believe, though, that this case falls outside
the boundaries of those authorities. There was no dispute on the facts of when
Award Number 19914 Page 2
Docket Number TD-20086
claimant made his report, for he readily acknowledged that he made it the next
morning. The issue was whether this action could be regarded as authorized by
a reasonable interpretation of the instructions, albeit the Carrier had a different, and also reason
adversaries, because the claimant sought to convince the author that his, the
author's instructions had two different meanings. Where such issues are drawn,
we think it presumes too much to regard the author as a neutral on the question
of what his instructions mean. The following extract from the hearing transcript plainly shows that
the meaning which claimant gave to them.
"Wilson: Mr. Hall, how can you say that you could wait until morning
to notify Mr. Jones when these instructions read otherwise?
Hall: Mr. Wilson, this was my understanding that this was what
these instructions meant.
Wilson: Mr. Hall, am I to understand that you do not understand
these instructions?
Hall: Mr. Wilson, I thought I did until I was charged with this
violation.
Wilson: Mr. Hall, how can you say that you thought you understood
these instructions when they read otherwise?"
We have no doubt that Carrier has sole authority to say what its
special instructions mean. We also have no doubt that discipline will not lie
in the instant dispute if more than one interpretation can reasonably be drawn
from the instructions. But this issue was not fairly tried. Since the central
fact of the hearing involved the issue of whether claimant's interpretation was
a reasonable one, and since Mr. Wilson was the author of the instructions in
controversy, we think Mr. Wilson either should not have served as hearing officer, or should have ta
another competent Carrier witness. He did neither and we conclude that claimant was thereby deprived
shall sustain the claim.
FINDINGS: The Third Division of the Adjustment Board, upon the whole record
and all the evidence, finds and holds:
That the parties waived oral hearing;
That the Carrier and the Employes involved in this dispute are
respectively Carrier and Employes within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act,
as approved June 21, 1934;
_i.
Award Number 19914 Page 3
Docket Number TD-20086
That this Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over
the dispute involved herein; and
That the Agreement was violated.
A W A R D
Claim sustained.
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of Third Division
ATTEST;
92-4/1
PAW,49,,
Executive Secretary
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 7th day of September 1973.
is
. a